Believe All Women’ at Your Peril

by David Solway at American Thinker:

We’ve heard it all before: “start by believing.” “Believe survivors.” At a recent panel discussion at the Ottawa City Hall, where my wife, Janice Fiamengo, was one of three featured participants, the subject of #MeToo and “Believe All Women” came up during the Q&A. (See 1:35:34 to 1:38:27 of the embedded YouTube video below.) An audience member claimed that it behooved us in most cases to give credence to women bringing forth their stories of sexual abuse. The young woman was skeptical of the court process as a way of resolving issues of sexual violence in women’s favor and contended that we need “non-criminal” forms of restorative justice, some form of “healing or accountability.”

Janice and her co-panelists, authors Paul Nathanson and David Shackleton, quickly put paid to that notion. Non-legal judgments via social media and public shaming could be as onerous and punitive as legal sentencing, turning men who had not been proven guilty into social lepers and bankrupts. The legal system may be flawed, but, as Shackleton remarked, it is the best we have and is theoretically capable of improvement.

In fact, an argument against #MeToo and the concomitant pursuit of non-legal incrimination is often put forward by the subtler variety of feminists, such as Josephine Mathias in the National Post and Bari Weiss in the New York Times, but for a completely different reason. They maintain that false allegations in the public sphere, such as the Duke Lacrosse and Rolling Stone moments, may discredit the “Believe All Women” movement; in the words of Weiss, such fictions “will tear down all accusers as false prophets.” It is not the harm to innocent men that concerns Weiss, but the damage to female credibility. The movement must be maintained.

Here I would indicate that, contrary to the young questioner who distrusted the cumbersome apparatus of the courts, which lead only to “re-victimization,” as well as Shackleton’s faith in a self-corrective justice system, court judgments in our SJW era tend to favor women – and when they don’t, the cry goes up for a quasi-legal system based on the “preponderance of evidence” rather than the “presumption of innocence” model – that is, on whatever narrative the judge or adjudicator tends to believe as more persuasive, evidence be damned. After all, women who lie or collude are only victims too troubled to get their stories straight.

In any event, whether utterly oblivious of the need for reasonable assessment and sober judgment before taking action, as in the example of the young woman in the Q&A session, or arguing against public dissemination of false reports, as the more sophisticated feminists hold, the problem remains. A deep emotional commitment to a cause, scanting the imperative to seek evidence before judgment or refusing to recognize that abuse comes in many forms, including women who trivialize their complaints or are complicit in unsavory acts in order to further their careers, is, to put it bluntly, immoral. What we are observing is an ideological compulsion that militates against reason and fairness.

A case in point: Andrea Dworkin, one of the stoutest pillars of radical feminist theory, claimed in her autobiographical writings that she had been abused and raped from the age of nine and continuing for decades. As Dworkin assured us in her book Intercourse, “[v]iolation is a synonym for intercourse”; again, in Our Blood, that “[u]nder patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.” It’s a bridge too far for most sensible people. Even feminist former columnist for The Globe and Mail Leah McLaren dismisses her stories as “full of inconsistencies and logical gaps.” No wonder Dworkin, who said, “There is always one problem for a woman: being believed,” is herself unbelievable. Her voluminous deposition is a form of abusing her readers with mainly self-indulgent fables.

Of course, belief in such matters should depend on the search for credible evidence and the objective assessment of facts, but such an approach has been blithely discarded by another radical feminist and collaborator, Catherine MacKinnon. In Feminism Unmodified, she wrote: “Our critique of the objective standpoint as male is a critique of science as a specifically male approach to knowledge. With it, we reject male criteria for verification” (emphasis mine). It follows that truth deriving from objective analysis is a male conspiracy meant to subjugate women. Ergo, women must be believed regardless of evidence, the rule of law, and objective verification, since these are merely patriarchal strategies to enforce the masculine will.

The nonsense brachiates with every passing day, wherever we might look. In a recent profile for Canada’s elite left-wing rag The Walrus, Canada’s minister of foreign affairs Chrystia Freeland declared: “I’m a woman. I’m a wife. I’m a mother. One hundred years ago, I would’ve been beaten by my husband. That’s what happened to pretty much all women.” Judging from her photo, I suspect that Freeland is not 100 years old, but then, I suppose we must give her the benefit of the doubt. She is a high-ranking government apparatchik who must know what she is talking about.

Naturally, feminists will point to statistics showing that men predominate in cases of domestic violence. The category of domestic violence has been a boon for feminists, who argue that IPV (intimate partner violence) is almost entirely one-sided, with women the vast majority of victims. But I know of many innocent men falsely accused by their partners, who have lost everything, including the right to visit their children, and of others who decide to plea-bargain rather than spend years in court. Plea-bargaining obviously swells the number of ostensibly violent men, a welcome datum for the feminist thesis. I have an acquaintance who, insisting on his integrity, refused the plea offer, resulting in a five-year ongoing trauma that has rendered him penniless and now, with a criminal record, effectively unemployable. His life is ruined.

Additionally, many studies have argued that “gender symmetry” in instances of domestic violence actually exists and that “battered husband syndrome” is a fact of life. Erin Pizzey, founder of the first women’s shelter in the U.K., discovered to her surprise that over 60%of the women admitted to the center were no less violence-prone than their male partners. The issue is clearly vexed.

As David Horowitz writes in RealClear Politics, “In the hysterical atmosphere created by the #MeToo movement – a by-product of the Women’s March and the ‘movement’ that produced it – mere accusations become tantamount to guilt with chilling results, and ominous implications for a country built on due process, and the defense of individual rights.” If, he continues, “elites believe that the core truth of our society is a system of interlocking and oppressive power structures based around immutable characteristics like race or sex or sexual orientation, then sooner rather than later, this will be reflected in our culture at large.” And the culture will suffer for it.

The “Believe All Women” meme is now rooted in our manifold hierarchies of oppression. It will continue to do untold harm to both men and women unless we can return to the approximate sanity of the past, before the absurdly named “Twitter” feeds, the duplicitous and unaccountable intimacy of Facebook, and the Fake News Media came to substitute for investigative justice.

THE CLINTONS’ TENTACLES: THEY’RE EVERYWHERE

by Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine:

Remember Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat whose report on conversations at a London bar with George Papadopoulos is said to have triggered the FBI’s concern about links between the Trump campaign and Russia? The Hill reports that Downer was behind a big contribution to the Clinton Foundation.

According to the Hill’s John Solomon and Alison Spann, Downer played a key role in securing $25 million in aid from his country to help the Clinton Foundation fight AIDS. He and Bill Clinton signed the memorandum of understanding that made it happen.

The Clinton Foundation won praise for helping fight AIDS in South Asia, say Solomon and Spann. However, it also drew criticism from auditors about “management weaknesses” and inadequate budget oversight.

With Downer’s involvement in the Russia story, Clinton friends and supporters now comprise 100 percent of the sources whose information prompted and fed the counter-intelligence investigation in its early days. Christopher Steele, who played the lead role, was paid by the Clinton campaign (through cut-outs). Sidney Blumenthal, a long-time friend and associate of the Clintons, funneled information to Christopher Steele through the State Department. And, of course, their information was processed at the FBI by ardent Clinton supporters like Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe.

To be clear, the connection between Downer and the Clintons doesn’t mean the information he provided about his conversation with Papadopoulos is false. The key bits of information reportedly were that Papadopoulos had meaningful contacts with well-connected Russians and that the Russian had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.

Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty of lying to the FBI regarding “the timing, extent and nature of his relationships and interactions with certain foreign nationals whom he understood to have close connections with senior Russian government officials.” It wouldn’t be surprising if Papadopoulous, over lots of drinks, bragged to Downer about Russia connections. It’s also quite possible that he told Downer the Russians had dirt on Clinton.

Still, the fact of Downer’s connections to the Clintons raises questions. One wonders how Downer and Papadopoulos came to have their conversation in the first place. Was it a chance meeting or a set-up?

And to what extent was Downer a reliable, impartial interpreter of exactly what Papadopoulos told him and the trustworthiness of what he said? To what extent, if any, did Downer’s relationship with the Clintons cause him to make more of drunken bar talk than he should have?

Members of Congress are complaining that the FBI did not disclose Downer’s connection to the Clintons in testimony to relevant committees. Rep. Jim Jordan says the non-disclosure underscores the need for a special counsel to investigate the FBI’s conduct regarding the Trump-Russia investigation:

The Clintons’ tentacles go everywhere. So that’s why it’s important. We continue to get new information every week, it seems, that sort of underscores the fact that the FBI hasn’t been square with us.

Whether or not one agrees with Jordan’s conclusion, his premise seems true. The Clinton’s tentacles are, indeed, far-reaching. That’s how a Russia collusion story that seemingly has nothing behind it has roiled America for more than a year.

Fox Exposes the Clintons in the Scandalous Series

by Peter Barry Chowka at American Thinker:

The excellent 7-part Fox News documentary series Scandalous, covering the scandals of the Clintons through the 42nd president’s impeachment trial in 1999, continues tonight with the premiere of part 2, “A Woman Called Paula.” The hour-long program airs at 8 P.M. E.T./P.T. At 7 P.M., part 1, “Up Crooked Creek” about the Whitewater scandal, which originally aired last Sunday, will be reprised.

Fox hopes that Scandalous will be an ongoing series devoted to various political scandals in American history. The first 7 parts, devoted to the Clintons, total 280 minutes of content and go a long way towards helping to correct the largely sanitized and whitewashed record of Bill Clinton’s scandal-ridden career and presidency. Since he left office on January 20, 2001, the mainstream media, to my knowledge, has never attempted any serious appraisals of the underside of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s eight years in the White House and their earlier careers in Arkansas. The only exception was the PBS American Experience 2-part, 4-hour presidents’ series episode about Clinton which aired most recently in 2012. It covered Bill and Hillary’s entire career with only a minor focus on the scandals. Like most MSM appraisals of the Clintons, it reinforced the gauzy, airbrushed history of the 1990s, which witnessed the pumped up Internet dot com surge that helped to propel the temporary economic boomlet before the bubble started to burst in 2000, Bill Clinton’s last full year in office.

The universally positive mainstream media appraisals of Bill Clinton’s tenure as president — his 1999 impeachment trial notwithstanding — helped him to achieve a 66% approval rating when he left office in 2001 and strong approval ratings in subsequent years (until recently) as an ex-president.

Scandalous is off to a good start. Part 1 aired twice last Sunday and earned very strong ratings, with the show beating its competition on CNN and MSNBC in the Nielsen ratings by a wide margin in both total viewers (40+% more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined in the 8 P.M. hour) and the age 25-54 demographic. CNN has also had good ratings luck with its documentaries in recent years, including multi-part series devoted to the decades of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. In my opinion, Fox News’ efforts with Scandalous represent a more serious and balanced appraisal of its subject than CNN’s hagiographic and one-sided take on recent decades, especially their excesses. (In reviewing CNN’s “The Nineties,” Salon — usually a friend of CNN — opined that the series was “empty nostalgia for a decade we should let die.”)

Part 2 of Scandalous, “A Woman Called Paula,” focuses on the Paula Jones affair, which was investigated by the Special Prosecutor appointed to look into the Clintons’ involvement in the corrupt Whitewater, Arkansas land deal while Bill Clinton was the governor of Arkansas. According to an article about the episode at Fox News’ Web site, “A Woman Called Paula”

follows Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit against former President Bill Clinton and the high-stakes political drama that ensued.

Jones alleged that then-Arkansas Gov. Clinton propositioned her and exposed himself at a conference in Little Rock in 1991. He denied the allegation.

“She was a woman that really just wanted to have her good name cleared. All she wanted was an apology,” said Joseph Cammarata, who represented Jones.

When that didn’t happen, they filed a lawsuit, eventually reaching a $850,000 settlement with Clinton in 1999.

Although its critics on the left insist that Fox News, which they often refer to as “Faux News,” is anything but “fair and balanced” (its original motto), recent studies have concluded that its news coverage is in fact the most objective of the mainstream cable/satellite and broadcast media. Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center, for example, in its analysis of media reporting on President Trump’s first 100 days, found that the broadcast networks and cable television news channels’ coverage of Trump was 90+% negative. The sole exception was Fox News, whose reporting on President Trump was slightly more negative than positive (52 to 48%) and was therefore the closest of all media studied to being balanced.

Part 1 of Scandalous represented a serious effort to reconstruct past events, using archival video clips interspersed with new interviews with many of the principals in the story, some of them speaking on camera and on the record for the first time. Hopefully, the strong ratings so far for the series, like CNN’s success with its multi-part documentaries, will breathe new life into television documentaries which in the past were a mainstay of the broadcast networks but have all but disappeared in recent years, except for PBS.

Peter Barry Chowka is a veteran reporter and analyst of news on national politics, media, and popular culture. In addition to his writing, Peter has appeared as a guest commentator on NBC; PBS; the CBC; and, on January 4, 2018, the BBC. For announcements and links to a wide selection of Peter’s published work, follow him on Twitter at @pchowka.

“Our American democracy bears a concept that one is innocent until proved guilty….”beyond a shadow of doubt” some add on.

There is much noise these days from the feminist-feminazi circles of American politics. Many, especially those who don’t crave for children, claim female superiority to the human male. Nearly all belong to leftists political gangs and groups of one kind or another. Many hang inside and out of schools, colleges, and universities doing what today’s Democrats, fascists and communists do, make trouble and noise. They program to disrupt our United States in any and every manner possible….in the name and doings of freedom by making it disappear as a free nation. Feminists need special care and allowance to do their feminist deeds.

Feminists need fascism to rule their way to strengthen their day. They are rallying for their revolution in Washington to begin this December, with the election of the very leftist Democrat candidate………in order to elevate the devious, dishonest Charles Schumer to rule the Senate to disrupt the people’s election of Donald J. Trump as our nation’s President.

Roy Moore was recently accused by leftist Democrats who collared a middle aged gal who claimed that 38 years ago when she was 14, a 32 year old man, Roy Moore, had been rather casual with her…..and now, but never before even when he was a judge, suddenly was directed to appear and cry on television to keep him, a conservative, from going to Washington by helping creepy, deviate leftist, Chuck Schumer gain control of the US Senate and begin proceedings to remove OUR DONALD from the White House. ” ghr

Why I’m voting for Roy Moore

by Jon Guertin at American Thinker

As a transplant to Alabama and the American South, I’m surprised when events here make their way into the national dialogue. For reasons other than college football, the coastal media writes off Southerners and the culture here as too tinged with Confederate-inspired non-sophistication to be taken seriously. For my part, I happily moved here from a blue state where everyone thinks he’s sophisticated, and I haven’t seriously looked back in nearly ten years. We certainly have problems, but people here can spot phony, and they hate it. The accusations against Roy Moore have a strong whiff of phoniness in their telling and retelling that will likely fail to block his election to the Senate next month.

With that said, Moore mismanaged this from his end. He is an ideal candidate for hypocrisy-hunters and should have been ready for this attack. It could have been anticipated with a planned set of talking points and an army of credible responders ready to pounce on the story when it came out. The left is predictable in its tactics and willingness to launch a barrage of innuendo and nastiness if these will help the leftist candidate win.

Perhaps Moore’s portrayal of naïveté is one reason he’s a popular figure with many in this state. I suspect that fair-minded people will have a hard time using accusations, especially concerning alleged behavior 40 years ago, as sufficiently compelling to switch their vote.

In my view, this election will likely come down to turnout.

Should he win, Moore’s election will test two important principles for Republicans. The first is, who decides how voters in each state should chose their representatives in Congress, and the second is, how seriously does our elected leadership view the opportunities inherent in holding majorities in each chamber along with the White House?…….” Please continue reading below:http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/11/why_im_voting_for_roy_moore.html

“The American political community has not taken adequate notice of Hillary Clinton’s book What Happened (the title is not posed as a question). It was generally panned when it came out a couple of months ago for blaming everyone but herself for her defeat. I have never been a Clinton-basher, and I was astonished by the venom, untruthfulness, and zealotry of her account. Mrs. Clinton writes persuasively of seeking “grace” after her defeat, and concluded most of her speeches throughout the 2016 campaign calling for “love and kindness,” yet she is unrelievedly ungracious. She describes her opponent as a clear and present danger to the country, . . . an unqualified bully [whose] towering self-regard blotted out all hope of learning or growing, . . . a charlatan . . . [who is] sexist, misogynist, [who] appealed to the ugliest impulses of our national character, . . . [is] on the wrong side of justice, history, and basic human decency, . . . [is] hostile to civil rights and voting rights across the board, is for nuclear proliferation, against NATO, and for torturing prisoners, . . . lacks character, values, and experience, [and] will be the most reckless president in American history, and put at risk our country’s national security and well-being. She claims that Trump implied she would be assassinated by “the Second Amendment people,” when he was referring to their talent at lobbying the Congress; and implies that he called the Sandy Hook school massacre in 2012, where 27 people were killed, including many children, “a hoax” (an outrageous falsehood). She calls Trump “an America-bashing misogynist,” like Vladimir Putin and Julian Assange (of WikiLeaks), really thinks he might have been conspiring with Russian intelligence and WikiLeaks, and even attaches some credence to the “golden shower” rumor that Trump organized a group of prostitutes to do unsanitary things on a bed in a Moscow hotel where the Obamas once slept. In sum, she declares Donald Trump to be “the least experienced, least knowledgeable, least competent president our country has ever had, . . . who doesn’t think in terms of morality or human rights, he only thinks in terms of power and dominance.” Her opponents are always “the extreme right,” though Trump is in fact a centrist on most issues except law enforcement, well to the left of the Ted Cruz Republicans. “He dreams of Moscow on the Potomac.” She writes that Trump has “an affection for tyrants, hostility toward allies, and alleged financial ties to shady Russian actors.” He has “degraded national life” and “is a tumor on the American soul,” and comes to the very edge of an accusation of outright treason. There’s not much “grace, love, and kindness” here.

Previous narrowly defeated presidential candidates have been almost uniformly civilized. It never seems to have occurred to Hillary Clinton that Trump won because the previous 20 years of government had been utterly and bipartisanly incompetent, in the White House and the Congress. Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama produced the housing bubble and the Great Recession, endless and fruitless war in the Mideast and an immense humanitarian tragedy, mountainous budgetary, current-account, and trade deficits, and, under Obama, serious increases in poverty and violence, a shrinking work force, and a foreign policy of telling America’s allies and enemies to change roles and places. (Clinton proudly claims that the surrender to Iran’s nuclear military ambitions avoided an arms race in the Middle East, and fears what a mess Trump might make of North Korea, oblivious to her own and her husband’s bungling of the issue.) She somewhat grasps that tens of millions of voters don’t enjoy being called “deplorables” (though she thinks they are anyway), but doesn’t grasp that Trump was running as much against the Bushes and Obama as against the Clintons. She seems not to realize that he and his supporters concluded that the entire political class, including its national-media launderers, Wall Street paymasters, greasy lobbyists, and Hollywood cheerleaders, all had to go when the swamp is drained. Mrs. Clinton attributes her defeat to the malice of James Comey (the former FBI director), popular misogyny, the Russians, Republican chicanery, the Electoral College, and the near impossibility of a party’s winning three straight terms. She saluted Comey when he vastly exceeded his authority as a senior police official by announcing that she would not be prosecuted, but he subsequently (very clumsily) reopened and then closed the investigation of the email controversy. Mrs. Clinton describes this sequence as being “shivved by Jim Comey three times.” It was an eruption of Comey’s egotism and poor judgment, but he exonerated her twice, while admitting that she had lied to federal investigators — Martha Stewart went to prison for less — and he merely said some new emails were being examined on the third occasion. Not much of a shivving. Then comes the misogyny of the American electorate, which did not prevent them from giving her more votes than Trump (albeit not as usefully distributed). Five previous presidents were elected with fewer votes than their chief opponent, because the United States is a federation where all the adhering states entered with the same level of jurisdictional sovereignty, regardless of population. If it were a straight matter of popular plurality, Trump would have campaigned in California, New York, and Illinois, where Clinton racked up big majorities; and if it were like the French system, where a second ballot is required between the two leading candidates where there is no majority on the first vote, Trump would have won anyway, as he would have picked up most of the Libertarian vote (4 million), while Clinton would have got most of the Greens (1 million). Party control of administrations has lately tended to change after two terms, but the Republicans had three straight terms in the 1920s, followed by five straight Democratic terms, and the Republicans had three terms in a row under Reagan and Bush. It can be done, with a popular retiring president and a strong successor, but neither was the case in 2016. There was no argument to reelect the Democrats after the general policy fiasco of the Obama tenure, and the whole Democratic campaign was to pillory Trump as a gangster, a traitor, and a buffoon. Hillary also thinks she was a victim of the disenfranchisement of non-white and youthful voters, though there is no evidence that this happened, and neither Trump nor the Republican party would have had any ability to do it.

More alarming than Mrs. Clinton’s ungraciousness is her dishonesty. She all but accuses Trump of treasonable collusion with Russia, and Russian interference in the election looms even larger than misogyny and Comey’s skullduggery in her demonology of causes of the national tragedy of her defeat. But all the “evidence” she cites of Trump–Kremlin collusion is taken from the now-infamous Christopher Steele dossier. Since the publication of this book, it has come to light that the Clinton campaign paid $10 million for Steele’s unverifiable pastiche of defamatory gossip and fabrications against Trump. The entire case against Trump has, after 16 months of FBI investigation, turned up no evidence. The Clinton campaign denied, until the facts came to light, that it had any knowledge of the origins of the Steele dossier, and now says that it doesn’t matter who paid for it; and she now refers to it as “campaign information.” The bipartisan leadership of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee has confirmed that this dossier is the sole basis for the continuation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Mrs. Clinton professes to believe that she faced a hostile press throughout the campaign, an unimaginable liberty with the facts to anyone who saw the relentless sandbag-job the press conducted against Trump. She writes that, on October 31, 2016, the New York Times, which she thinks was hostile to her, ran “one of the worst stories of the entire election, claiming the FBI saw no link between the Trump campaign and Russia.” It is nearly 13 months later and the Mueller leak machine has confirmed the same finding. The outright dishonesty of her citing a smear campaign she had commissioned and paid for as evidence of her opponent’s perfidy is a historic pathfinder in electoral dirty tricks, vastly surpassing anything from hardballers like FDR, LBJ, or Richard Nixon (whom she falsely accuses of “crimes,” though no serious evidence of any has been produced against him, though members of his entourage certainly were guilty of crimes). “Even if no direct ties ever come to light, we need to know how the right-wing war on truth opened the door to Russian attack,” she writes. Yet everyone agrees that though the Russians meddled in the election, they had no impact on the result. The Russians took only $6,500 worth of Facebook advertisements, without endorsing a candidate, in an election in which Trump and Clinton spent $1.85 billion, most of it being spent by Clinton. She has an unblemished record, she implies, and the fact that the majority of Americans don’t trust her is due to the “viciousness of the Republican smear merchants.” She says that the timely release of the Billy Bush tape of Trump’s verbal indiscretions eleven years before (about the ease for a celebrity of groping women), though it was clearly fired as an intended game-ender, came as a surprise to her, and that she was heroic in “winning” the second presidential debate two days later, given the pressure she was under. In fact, Trump, with his campaign apparently in shambles and principal figures deserting or taking their distance, was under more pressure than anyone in the history of those debates going back to Kennedy and Nixon in 1960, and he won the debate. Trump’s production, earlier in the day, of a trio of women who alleged sexual assault against her husband was, in Mrs. Clinton’s view, a tawdry and outrageous resurrection of those she memorably described in the past as “the bimbos.” Trump’s coarse locker-room reflections are apparently disqualifying, but Bill Clinton’s scandalous and possibly criminal sexual assaults on various women when he was governor and president do not alter the Norman Rockwell marriage of Bill and Hillary. The author is a relentless partisan: Republicans are under-educated pessimists, “the deplorables,” as she called them last year.

Reagan “sapped the spirit of the country,” though he restored the country’s confidence. (He also led the greatest economic boom in modern U.S. history and won the Cold War, but she doesn’t mention that.) Dwight Eisenhower isn’t mentioned at all, apart from having been Adlai Stevenson’s opponent, and Richard Nixon was a criminal, never mind that Nixon ended school segregation and conscription, extracted the country from the Democrats’ war in Vietnam while preserving a non-Communist government in Saigon, opened relations with China and the Mideast peace process, signed the greatest arms-control agreement in history with the USSR, founded the Environmental Protection Agency, reduced the crime rate, and stopped the endless rioting in American cities.

Since the publication of this book, former party chairman Donna Brazile has written that Mrs. Clinton rigged a number of primaries in her struggle with Senator Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination, and may have violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. Mrs. Clinton dismisses Whitewater (which led, circuitously, to the impeachment of her husband), Travelgate, the Benghazi tragedy (where the American ambassador to Libya was murdered by terrorists and she and Obama pretended that it was mob anger provoked by an anti-Islamic video produced by a private American citizen), and the email controversy that “amounted to precisely nothing” (I think not). She does not mention her speech of apology to the world’s Muslims, a toe-curling embarrassment to the entire Western world, nor her inability to utter or write the words “Islamic terrorism or extremism,” nor the very disconcerting pay-to-play activities of the Clinton Foundation, including the payment or pledge of $145 million and a $500,000 speech fee for Bill Clinton at a time when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s agreement was required to approve a sale of uranium assets in the U.S. to Russian interests. Democratic senators whom she praises in comradeship have turned on the Clintons: Elizabeth Warren accuses her of cheating Bernie Sanders, and Kirsten Gillibrand says that Bill Clinton, because of his peccadilloes, should have resigned. They may be unjust, but this is what the Clintons’ allies now think of them. Her righteousness is moth-eaten and threadbare. Mrs. Clinton believes she is a good and sincere Christian, though she makes it clear that joining a church and being a communicant in it should be with the purpose of turning that church into an agency for leftward political action, what she calls “progressive reform.” By this, we are left in no doubt, she means rounding up all those who are beneath the average in prosperity or acceptability in mainstream-majority society, or if not, at least highly dissatisfied with the lot of those who are, and mobilizing them as a democratic majority to impose transfers of wealth and status from those who have earned or inherited it to the less fortunate or successful. This is a constant process of evaluating where the electoral majorities are, pitching to them as victims in the name of a benign state, and representing to those who pay for these transfers that it is their Christian and social duty and that they should rejoice in their opportunity to better the quality and stability of American life and society. More alarming than Mrs. Clinton’s ungraciousness is her dishonesty.

In Mrs. Clinton’s America, spiritual inspiration exists to pursue redistributive materialism, all “progress” apart from a little doughty self-help is the result of state intervention, the state has a practically unlimited right and duty to correct meritocratic as well as inherited or exploitive socioeconomic imbalances, and the U.S. Democratic party must be a secular church militant where those who oppose abortions (about half the American public) are, along with many other large groups, unwelcome. All politics is a constant process of “reform,” in which, miraculously, the majority gain at the expense of the more accomplished (as well as more fortunate) minority. This isn’t really Christianity or democracy; it easily slips into rank acquisition of votes with the money of part of the electorate in a cynical and corrupt manner, and Mrs. Clinton convicts herself of such attitudes with this astonishing display of rage, affected humility, idealism, and myth-making. It is a sobering and a disturbing read…..”

She’d be more male. So, she is born DITSY as is her nature. The more communication she professionally spends with normal males, the more likely she can become unditsied, more lucid and rational.

Two and two often don’t make four, in the feminist mind. She prefers to express feelings rather than explore. She seeks security and comfort, by Nature or Nature’s God, I prefer, security is required by the human female because she is the bearer of the human animal’s off spring. If she is “in the mood”, she, in a free society, has or feels she has a right to feel about things any way she pleases rather than to measure or adjust or explore or be driven to problem solve as is the human animal born male. Hence, our current feminized, feelings driven United States of America is collapsing as a unit into a suicidal abyss.

In today’s Obamaling era of the Left, at university, and among political mouths in the foolish traditional Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and other such ‘Synods’ of today’s fading JudeoChristian life, have become feminized with feelings and are made to feel they are as man as men.

What would happen to America if our leftist feminized peoples continued to form a dictatorship to force the entire adult population to be man as me? Most women don’t think along those lines. Their imagination by birth is directed to follow other avenues of dreams and accomplishment. (No living entity is perfect. Without imperfection living matter would never pass its “amoeba” stage of existence. I WAS TAUGHT THAT IN THE SMALL UNITED LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE ASCENSION in 1947 in St. Paul, Minnesota I attended by force by Mother and love of learning!

I did teach Senior High School Social Studies for twelve years, was married for 34 years, and am a father of two boys and one girl, now adults. My two sons explore every day of their lives which includes, demands, problem solving. They are also Donald Trump Republicans, like their problem solving father.

My daughter prefers security, dreams, dancing, attention and is well married to a fine Jewish fellow who seems to love her very much. They live out East on the island of Manhattan, are leftists who believed in Hillary.

Female difficulties with the human male have again made headlines this past month and a half….at first in the leftist entertainment world with a Harvey Weinstein becoming the center of feminist fury. Hundreds, even leftist Hanoi Jane Fonda claimed victim to support the feminism scream, a leftist unraveling defying this caste’s catechism that there is no difference among human animals except feelings.

Feminist leftists sell the story of one human sex these days….via the Democrat Party and its rule in government and law, in school, at university, of the press ….and in some churches and synagogues….perhaps even at Amazon, but that would be kept hush-hush by Amazon management….while countless human guys spend time out in the streets noted for their raping, killing, pillaging, burning, and lying about nearly everything.

This past week the name Roy Moore came to surface, a man in his seventies who won the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Alabama a seat made vacant when then Alabama U.S. Senator, Jeff Sessions became Attorney General in the Trump administration. Noted fascist news center, the Washington Post, soon came up with accusations against this former Judge, Roy Moore,charging him with sexual misconduct with a fourteen and two sixteen year olds nearly forty years ago.

A television scene demonstrated one alleged victim now in her fifties, crying over his touchings of nearly four decades ago. No more recent calls have been dug up by the Post.

At my distance I assumed and still assume this Judge Moore did commit these four or five indecencies. But, there was and still is, no proof…..only charges from a world long ago. We Americans, however, are supposed to by law remember that a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond doubt.

Politically motivated males and females of Congress insist Judge Moore, still innocent, be removed from his candidacy…..which will make it certain the DISHONEST LEFTISTS IN CONGRESS WILL SECURE ANOTHER SEAT TO DESTROY OUR AMERICAN DREAM of equal opportunity for all citizens, with fascist bigotry being established as the new American Way.

Our Nation’s future depends upon a Conservative American Congress to survive the FEMINISTS’ Party, its criminality, dishonesty, fascistic, feminized leftist-antiAmericans racists now in control of the Democrat Party…..and their Sanctuary Cities owned by the urban left to weaken and destroy the nation’s unity.

Guys are born to problem solve….gals to bear children to continue the existence of the human species by the laws of Nature, “God”, I prefer!

Judge Moore has apparently demonstrated decades of civility and responsibility over the past 38 years.

It’s our Democrats who have changed during that time period….the Obamalings, both political and urban street savages, the Clinton world, have become racist and fascist in their politics. These leftists demand we continue opening our borders to millions of racial and political foreigners demanding comfort and security at our American citizen expense in exchange for their fascism’s one Party vote.

Leftists have already gained one party fascist control over the social sciences taught at university and public schools ignoring truth and freedom to study beyond feminazi, racist, and class hate programs of the NEW RACIST, SEXIST LEFT to destroy traditional America raise by its forefathers’ founding of our Great Human Republic UNDER GOD WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL”

Knowledge needs to be taught in order to conquer the unknown. THIS IS A MALE DEMAND. Accumulating knowledge is best accomplished by a population craving to seek Truth….that is, to grasp more and more knowledge.

Dear Feminists….both Republican and Democrat, of all sexes, colors, shapes and sizes still interested, at least somewhat, in a Free America…….

What if Roy Moore did commit these five discretions thirty eight years ago, but has ever since been an honorable citizen with a conservative persuasion in his politics?

What if our once honorable Democrat Party needs just one more vote in the Senate to guarantee its present fascist and feminist goal to eliminate forever! Feminists of all sexes, colors, shapes and sizes are now committed to destroy TRADITIONALLY DEMOCRATIC AMERICA and all other freedom oriented, truth-seeking opposition organizations , to secure their racist, sexist, economic fascist-socialist one party (totalitarian) future.

Let us assume our American, Roy Moore, skilled as a Judge, honorable, outside of his unproved, alleged sins of 38 years ago, is THE ONLY CANDIDATE TO SAVE AMERICA FROM THIS DICTATORSHIP FUTURE…let’s say a paid off Al Sharpton type, noted creepy criminal, racist, habitual liar, devoted to sell dishonesty, racism, an obedient crook and fascist for fame and fortune who, IF HE WINS PUTS AN END TO DEMOCRATIC AMERICA FOREVER…..(ALA SOUTH AMERICA’S ONCE DEMOCRATIC NOW FASCIST NATION, VENEZUELA.)

By 2020 if our nation’s Democrats strengthen their fascistic control of news, education, social-political agencies, and are funded as usual by big businesses, single American white females would probably vote 99% for profoundly, forever damaged, the crooked, Al Sharpton, and black females of all backgrounds about 97%.

Feminists do not care much about honesty, inquiry, search for knowledge, nor are they freedom oriented. They demand security as they did in Nazi Germany in the 1930s….and as a mass, never rebelled in any fascist, communist nation…ever, ever.

They demand security, not freedom or search for the unknown…..as a mass. Al Sharpton would win big time….because Roy Moore “done a female a slight male naughty” 42 years ago in 2020.